DGC Rant: Course Ratings

[Dave242]

Just the way it's done in many schools. Apparently parents think 1-5 is better than A-F.

I actually find this thinking very helpful.....the School grading system....... no F's need to be given out since as the OP alludes to, there are no courses that are true Failures (OK - a negligible number):

A+ =5.0 = best of the best
A = 4.5 = phenominal
A- =4.0 = excellent
B+ =3.5 = very good
B = 3.0 = good
B- =2.5 = typical
C+ =2.0 = reasonable
C = 1.5 = passable
C- =1.0 = poor
D+ =0.5 = bad
D = 0.0 = abysmal

See.....you don't even have to dole out any D-'s!

 

[humchris85]

^ When people do give ratings below 1.5 they get unhelpful voted, bashed and scolded. Some people probably just don't review those courses they would give a really low score to avoid all of that.

Not allways. I've put up quite a few reviews that were <1.5 discs that have done allright. One that has 9:thmbup:'s.

 

[davetherocketguy]

Not allways. I've put up quite a few reviews that were <1.5 discs that have done allright. One that has 9:thmbup:'s.

Exactly. I find lower rated reviews to be helpful especially when it seems to be in the midst of a bunch of reviews from the courses homers. I will often :thmbup: those reviews.

The other thing I think poor ratings will do is demonstrate a philosophy that I have held for years: I firmly believe that not every parcel of land is well suited for disc golf. Too many times I see municipalities try to shoe-horn in a course for the sake of having a course thus wasting money when it could have been better spent elsewhere. Personally, I would much rather see a parks department spend money on improving the parks they already have rather than attempt to put in a course where it really doesn't belong. This course is a classic example of what I am talking about.

-Dave

 

[humchris85]

I think this one could be discribed like that as well. I'll probably end up offending a few locals when I put up my review of that one.

 

[BrotherDave]

Maybe we should actually use the descriptors Tim assigned to each rating - I actually find them very useful when assigning a rating. As I'm walking away from a course, I have a clear idea as to whether I felt it was worse than most, typical/average, good (better than most), very good, or excellent, etc:

5.0 = best of the best
4.5 = phenominal
4.0 = excellent
3.5 = very good
3.0 = good
2.5 = typical
2.0 = reasonable
1.5 = passable
1.0 = poor
0.5 = bad
0.0 = abysmal

If you honestly think a course is good, but not very good... 3.0
If a course is worse than a "typical" course, it should get less than 2.5

Boom! That's basically what I do. If I'm deliberating on a rating, I just see which descriptor feels right. Works really well.

IMHO I think in order to grow the sport some courses need bad ratings. Courses that cause issues with crossing fairways, throwing over/near playgrounds, landing in private property, etc. need to get dinged on the rating. We as a community need to show the rest of the world that we don't hold those sorts of things (especially safety issues) in high regard. This may help future course development in communities that actually do a little research.

Requoted for truth. :clap:

 

[BogeyNoMore]

Just an observation... By definition, 2.5 should be the most common rating. After all, how can most courses not be "typical?" That said, we don't go put of our way to play typical courses (well maybe Mashie and Martin don't mind ).

We may play bad and or meh courses close to home as a matter of convenience or just for a change of pace, and some meh courses still have some interesting holes, but when most of us take the time to get to a destination, we're actively seeking better courses. I freely admit I tend to cherry pick rather than bag every course. Also, better courses tend to collect a lot more reviews (and that larger sample size is a good thing ratings wise).

So while most courses should have ratings closer to 2.5, many reviewers will have average ratings that might be higher. One also has to consider that some reviewers are more conservative with their ratings while others seem quite enthusiastic. But I think these generalities should hold up over the long haul.

 

[giles]

I don't see it that way. When I say "typical" it is in the context of "typical park course" meaning no extreme elevation changes. Holes mostly under 350'. Some sidewalk and road OB. Smattering of trees but nothing crazy wooded.

 

[Jukeshoe]

In re: assigning poor courses low ratings.

I've found that if you tell it like it is without straight up bashing the course most people (invested locals included) will give you a :thmbup: as long as the information contained in the review is factual.

Anyway, who cares if you rate low and DO collect some :thmbdown:s? Just pixels on a screen, man.

 

[simpletwist]

Why have a rating system at all if a horribly designed course gets a 50% rating. And no offense meant but no matter how nice a guy is doesn't mean he's a good course designer.

And what purpose would it serve if someone takes a trip, sees a course has a fair rating only to find they wasted time and money playing a lousy course.

I believe it's in everyone's best interest to be as objective as possible when rating and reviewing a course.